Cut the defecit? Or maybe not?

Graham_Devon

George Osbourne tommorow could announce that the defecit is not going to be cut in this parliament, rather plans to be announced to start cutting the defecit in 4 years time.

Not only that, but actually we may see the defecit increase in this term.

This comes from Nick Robinson (BBC Political Editor).

Remember, this is not confirmed, however, there doesn't really seem to be a way to spend the amount of money they plan on spending, AND cut the defecit, based on spending borrowed money. Unless of course there are radical cuts elsewhere.

If the defecity is increased and cutting it is kicked into the long grass for at least another 4 years, how will this effect us? I mean in terms of how on earth will we cut it, if its even bigger in 4 years without triggering another economic problem?

OptionARMAGEDDON

I think he was talking about balancing the structural deficit.

I mean in terms of how on earth will we cut it, if its even bigger in 4 years without triggering another economic problem?

meet my friend PAIN.

If you are not productive, forget it. Nail the NHS. Why its been ring fenced when its the one biggest useless drain on state resources I dont know. Why we need to prolong the life of terminally ill people at a cost of hundreds of thousands is lunacy. It was never designed to provide the services it now provides.

Wait for further cuts to benefits too.

chucknorris

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

Wait for further cuts to benefits too.

I'm all for supporting those genuinely unable to work but able bodied long term employed should IMO be made to work for benefits. I think I read something about that possibly happening but can't actually remember the details and whether it was a merely a suggestion or something that was actually going to be introduced.

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm all for supporting those genuinely unable to work but able bodied long term employed should IMO be made to work for benefits. I think I read something about that possibly happening but can't actually remember the details and whether it was a merely a suggestion or something that was actually going to be introduced.

Every time this comes up, you have those against it saying it will add to the welfare costs as you will have to employ people to make sure those on benefits are working.

I don't think anyone would take issue with spending our taxes ensuring the lazy do some work.

They then also turn around and state that you would have to up benefits to minimum wage.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Every time this comes up, you have those against it saying it will add to the welfare costs as you will have to employ people to make sure those on benefits are working.

I don't think anyone would take issue with spending our taxes ensuring the lazy do some work.

They then also turn around and state that you would have to up benefits to minimum wage.

I accept admin costs would be necessary but I would have thought that the actual work done and also a number of claimants disapearing would more than compensate (hopefully).

macaque_2

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm all for supporting those genuinely unable to work but able bodied long term employed should IMO be made to work for benefits. I think I read something about that possibly happening but can't actually remember the details and whether it was a merely a suggestion or something that was actually going to be introduced.

Chuck

In principle I agree but I am very suspicious about the qualifying criteria for 'genuinely unable to work'. Having travelled a lot and seen people coping in the most appallingly adverse circumstances, I would say that more than 95% of people in the UK who declare themselves 'genuinely unable to work' would get short shrift in many countries. To put it harshly (and I don't mean people who are really handicapped), hunger has remarkable curative powers for people with mobility or anxiety problems.

OptionARMAGEDDON

macaque wrote: »

Chuck

In principle I agree but I am very suspicious about the qualifying criteria for 'genuinely unable to work'. Having travelled a lot and seen people coping in the most appallingly adverse circumstances, I would say that more than 95% of people in the UK who declare themselves 'genuinely unable to work' would get short shrift in many countries. To put it harshly (and I don't mean people who are really handicapped), hunger has remarkable curative powers for people with mobility or anxiety problems.

Fully agree. Having met a few afghan teenagers with no legs begging on the streets, the "oh me back" brigade hold short shrift with me. I also am narked at the abuse levelled at my mothers local GP (liverpool way) in the reception, when the head practitioner DARED to clear a patient fit to work. "Aaah eye madte, buta gorra gedda job?!"

Bearing in mind 1/3 of UK women are obese, a little starvation wouldbe no bad thing anyhow. As for 0% rated child benefit for child number 3 onwards.

chucknorris

macaque wrote: »

Chuck

In principle I agree but I am very suspicious about the qualifying criteria for 'genuinely unable to work'. Having travelled a lot and seen people coping in the most appallingly adverse circumstances, I would say that more than 95% of people in the UK who declare themselves 'genuinely unable to work' would get short shrift in many countries. To put it harshly (and I don't mean people who are really handicapped), hunger has remarkable curative powers for people with mobility or anxiety problems.

I totally agree something needs to be done about this too.

sheffield_lad

Slightly off topic but do you really trust anything the BBC on politics? They are so left wing these days, after sitting in the car listening to Brothers Vic Derbyshire and Co I need my 1hr of C4 just to balance things up.

and do they have to turn every economy story on the pessimistic side?

OptionARMAGEDDON

Vic Derbyshire was fed coal and marxism from birth.

chewmylegoff

It seems pretty clear to me that nothing much is going to happen to the deficit. There is simply no appetite to do anything to resolve it through cuts, and its difficult to envisage the govt managing to stimulate growth against the global economic environment even if it was competent. Seems the choice we have is "which party will do the least incremental damage".

I reckon we'll bounce along like this for 10 years or so, and then elect some fascists.